Posts by Charles 9 16605 publicly visible posts • joined 10 Jun 2009
Then you should re-evaluate yourself. I've had telephone with Cox Communications for over a decade, and it's been as reliable as any telephone provider I've had in the past. And that includes two hurricanes, several tropical storms, and multiple lengthy blackouts. Phone line hasn't cut out more than a couple hours during the worst of them (when physically severed lines can easily be to blame). Meanwhile, cell phone towers are much more prone to power failures during disaster conditions. I've had my cell network cut out more often than the landline during blackouts.
PS. Look at the last three letters of VoLTE. VoLTE needs LTE to work, so LTE on DOCSIS is germane to this discussion.
PSS. You may want to give Charter a little time. They only merged with TWC last year and have a lot of old infrastructure to catch up with.
It is. Most major cable providers like Comcast and Cox have been upgrading their networks to be mostly fiber-based as a way to make their trunk infrastructure future-resistant.
In such setups, there are local breakouts every so often that are hooked to power lines. The breakouts convert the fiber feeds to coax for the last mile and feed it the necessary power. With such a setup, it wouldn't be much of a stretch for a microstation to take up a lead from the cabinet, bum a little power, and go from there.
No, a bodge (or kludge) simply means it's assembled haphazardly. Evolution tends to do that sometimes because it tends to be reactive. Has no meaning as to whether or not it actually works, just that it was designed on the spot (trust me, I've watched Scrapheap Challenge--now those were some bodge jobs; some just worked better than others). After all, not everything that comes out of evolution makes sense (like yawning).
But if you give it (and physics) some additional thought, you begin to realize that perhaps the REAL real reason the brain is as "efficient" as we think it is because we're also overlooking the idea that the brain is a bodge job. IOW, it's full of shortcuts and assumptions. It's as simple as taking a very good look at how the brain interprets the signals from our eyes (which BTW is rather incomplete). Extrapolate from that and you begin to wonder just how many of these bodges are built into our brain.
No, because the BIG reason WinRT failed was that the programs they wanted to run (x86-based) didn't. Qualcomm's betting they can beat that with an x86 emulator. Now, Intel's made patent threats, but we don't know how far this goes since we haven't seen actual patent numbers yet, plus there's existing prior art in emulating x86 instructions AND there's also AMD to consider.
"Not unless Intel blesses[1] the project it won't. They've already made it plain that anyone who trespasses against their emulation patents is gonna get dumped on from on high.."
If that's so, why haven't they attacked the DOSBOX project or MAME or other programs that emulate x86 CPUs?
If Intel really has pertinent patents, perhaps they'd be bold enough to cite them...
"Encode the same message in the high order bits of a photo posted to alt.fan.cats and it is impossible to prove that the message even exists, and even if you do, it is impossible to prove who the intended recipient is, thus neutering RIPA. To cite Agatha again: "When no-one suspects you, murder is easy"."
OK, then how do you get it past a media mangler or have to post it in a medium where you can't be sure the message will get through intact and in its original form? Plus there's the matter of establishing your code system in the first place: the First Contact problem. I haven't seen a system that can reliably work on zero contact.
"Knock on doors and a few heads to collect what is needed."
But what happens when those heads belong to and reside in hostile sovereign powers? Electronic communications have made international communications much easier: including to and from hostile powers, which makes investigations more difficult since sovereignty gets in the way.
"...assuming that all communication mechanisms are compromised/hostile."
Including word of mouth? Then how do they communicate at all given they must assume all methods of communication are not only hostile but capable of being intercepted and decoded (not even one time pads are immune as plods can intercept the pads before they're used)?
"It's not like the whole world only ever plays Fallout 4, Overwatch and WoW (which, the last time I checked, worked fine on Linux using WINE)."
WoW, maybe, but not Overwatch (only reports on the compatibility list rate Garbage). PLUS there's still the standing warning from Blizzard about using Battle.net (used in BOTH games) through WINE (BAN if you do).
Given how robust the PC gaming sphere is compared to consoles (remember, WoW is not on consoles, and Overwatch doesn't do cross-platform play, among other things), there are going to be PLENTY (probably more than those who don't) who DO give a damn. Being able to game PROPERLY on Linux with less overhead would be sweet for them...if it was possible. Trust me. I'm one of them.
"Yeah. Never experienced any problem with graphics drivers on Linux myself, but I've only tried two dozen distros on ... um ... 6 different machines. I do hear that some people have problems, though."
That's you. Me? I've had nothing but. An old Dell notebook with an nVidia chipset. The FOSS version chugs and the blob driver refuses to work no matter how much tweaking I did, no matter what the distro. It's simply incompatible in spite of all claims to the contrary. It had to go back to Windows just to run properly.
Radeon HD6850 a number of years ago. Tried to use it, honestly, but ran into too many panics and spontaneous reboots to be comfortable with it. And it wasn't exactly cutting edge, then. If it had problems then, I'd hate to think how the cutting edge fared.
Now, I had better luck with Intel-based graphics like when I was using an Acer netbook, but it's been the exception to my firsthand rule.
But some apps simply CANNOT be moved online because (1) they're too performance-intensive, (2) they involve local hardware, and/or (3) they involve confidential data that, for legal reasons, cannot leave the premises.
For these kinds of applications, local computers will always remain the go-to option. And most of the applications for that end remain Windows-ONLY.
Except they never get that far because of the huge upfront costs (infrastructure like this is notorious for being a high barrier of entry) that will be tricky to recover given that rural electricity rates are already troublesome. Plus if you're handling something potentially explosive like hydrogen or CNG, you're probably going to be forced to build special blast-safe storage facilities for them at additional exorbitant cost.
No there isn't because the average person is too stupid to make the connection, and You Can't Fix Stupid. It has to be so blatantly obvious even an idiot can see it, such as these things leading to actual kidnappings.
"The point I was making is that who uses such limited mediums to back up to these days, when you phone automatically does it to this "cloud" thingy anyway?"
Many of us don't trust clouds to stay where they are over time, plus there's the matter of data caps, which ARE stricter for mobiles than they are for landlines (due to sheer physics).
"For that matter, as usual ( :( ), who does backups even when it is automatic?"
It's not on Android. I don't know of any automated mechanism where Nandroids (complete app and data backups) can be done automatically, not even with rooting (AFAIK, only Recovery Mode can do a Nandroid). If Google were smart, they'd include a mechanism for such a backup into the standard Android so that any user can maintain backups in case Murphy strikes. It's not like it's that difficult, and you can even encrypt them if you're scared about data leaks.
"Their ability to mount an operation against the USA significant enough to imperil it's existence is nil."
Yeah, right, and no one thought it prudent to consider that airliners can be hijacked and turned into suicide vehicles. I trust those SIGINT whatevers about as far as I can throw them. Plus, even after 9/11, some suicide attacks still occurred because the instigators were the actual, licensed, etc. pilots.
If the plods say they don't have a chance, they're looking in the wrong place.
"Your post is informative to those who do not know otherwise, but... that was the joke."
Then where's the Joke Alert? Otherwise, I consider this a very bad case of "Dude, Not Funny!" unless YOU want to be one to argue with someone who insists on using a device that can ONLY use WEP (like a D-Link DIR-604, which is too weak to use WPA, believe me I've tried firsthand) and refuses to take, "Start from scratch" for an answer.
"Hardware manufacturers. They have a mutual interest in cooperating."
Not necessarily. If a market is mature or has significant government involvement, like plugs with their legally-binding safety standards, then yes, the manufacturers find it's best to come to terms.
BUT if a market is competitive, like it is in the SoC markets, then they DON'T want to cooperate because they're instead out to conquer. THEY want to become the standard-bearer instead of The Enemy. And governments usually don't set a standard until the smoke has cleared for fear of being chided for doing it wrong and wasting taxpayer money and possibly getting voted out.
"Somewhere along the line we seem to have missed out ensuring that public interest is looked after."
Of course not. The first priority of any business is to make money. Otherwise, it has no real reason for existing. All else is secondary, and part of the aim is to manipulate governments to maintain the status quo. If a government moves to mandate businesses cater to citizens first, you move to change the government to not make it so anymore.
WEP is trivial to crack these days and attackers can simply poll the devices that connect to your base station. Since you hide your ID, the clients MUST by necessity keep polling for them just to connect. Dead giveaway which is why it's considered good form not to rely on obscurity here. It's better to be known but hardened.
"If a US court ordered you, Charles 9, to divulge that data under penalty of contempt, could you oblige?"
Other side of the coin, if an Ireland court rules that divulging that data counts as a privacy violation under penalty of a huge fine, could I NOT oblige?
This is what I mean by a no-win situation. If I follow the US, Ireland and the EU fine me, if I don't, the US fines me, and there's no in-between. If I were Microsoft, I'd be bitching to BOTH of them, "COME ON! It's impossible for me to stay legal with BOTH of you! One of you's gotta give!"
"Consider that employee's liability under Irish law. I expect Ireland has legislation broadly similar to the UK Computer Misuse Act."
But then the US can counter that attemtping to extradite would violate existing US policy. And in extraditions, the housing country takes precedence and they reserve the right to refuse. Again, no-win situation because of diametrically-opposed standing laws separated by sovereignty.
"Perhaps you were missing school on the day your civics class explained due process of law."
But what happens when two sovereign due processes clash? If Microsoft USA is ordered by the courts (under the law) to divulge the data on penalty of contempt, but the only copy is stored on foreign sovereign soil whose law prohibits divulging the data on a different penalty, then Microsoft can possibly claim entrapment: they break a law either way AND claim it's through no fault of their own.
"Let me see first a working hypersonic missile in combat-representative conditions... also, I would also like to see something flying at very high speed in very dense air (skimming the surface).... first, it requires a lot of energy, second, a lot of that energy turns into heat.... also I would like to know what happens to the water in front of it due to the shock wave... you have unbounded optimism also...."
There's also the fact the faster a missile flies, the harder it is to turn (matter of sheer inertia, a known issue in dogfights), meaning a faster missile is much easier to lead and track. Technologies like the Phalanx only need a few seconds, and even at 1 mile a second, it's going to take a few seconds for it to reach target from the radar's horizon (even longer with an AWACS deployed to extend that horizon).
"Sorry, mate, you need to think more about the weapons and tactics, which was my point. Phalanx is a last ditch defence, because it is short range, max 2.2 miles."
Phalanxes are pretty small shipwise so can be put on many ships, INCLUDING the ships on the edge of your group. Heck, put a few on ALL the ships in your group and you have defense in depth.
"Now move on to the cream of the crop weapons, and think about the fact that although 4,500 rounds per minute sounds great, a Ruskie Zircon moves at 5,300 mph. How good is your radar, your gun control motors, your barrel accuracy etc?"
"Chances are that it'll splash the water behind the missile a treat."
Ever heard of LEADING the target? Targeting computers have been doing this since World War II and are much more capable now. Since in closing range a fast missile is unlikely to turn, it's actually easier to predict its path. It's not like a missile at Mach 5 can turn on a dime and maintain its structural integrity. You mention a missile's mass. A few hundred slugs of solid tungsten are no slouch, either.
"Now play out a more complex scenario where an adversary mixes a few hypersonic, supersonic, and subsonic missiles from different angles, to arrive at similar times."
Have a whole bunch of Phalanx units spread along your numerous screening ships. It's not like it has to be exclusive to the carrier. About the only way you can overwhelm a carrier group with Phalanxes all around would be to employ a Missile Massacre or to go nuclear, both of which have their own strategic problems (you're unlikely to stealth the former, raising the risk of being pre-empted, and only an omnicidal maniac would dare to let out the nuclear genie).
So the GDPR specifically and explicitly takes precedence over all other regulations, including those of copyright? I say that because at least the copyright mandate is part of the US Constitution so therefore really can't be overridden without an Amendment.
The Register 
Biting the hand that feeds IT
Copyright. All rights reserved © 1998–2024
